The German Act against Restraints on Competition (ARC) requires each company participating in the merger to report information on all the companies affiliated with it. This includes intra-group relationships, controlling relationships and interests held by the affiliated companies. This obligation also applies to the companies or shareholders controlling the notifying company. Fines of up to €100,000 may be imposed, not only on the notifying company but also potentially on the individuals who control it, for the submission of incomplete, incorrect or late notifications.

The notification in question concerned plans by slaughterhouse operator Tönnies to merge with another independent slaughterhouse operator. While the notification contained information on the affiliation of the notifying company itself, it did not contain information with respect to the majority shareholdings held, through a trustee, by Tönnies’ principal shareholder in Germany’s largest sausage manufacturer, Mühlen Group.

After the notification had been submitted, the FCO sent to Tönnies and other slaughterhouse operators a request for information on the group structure of Tönnies. Tönnies answered that no affiliations existed with respect to the wholesale pork and sausage manufacturing market. The FCO had, however, obtained information that suggested links between Tönnies and the Mühlen Group. When asked explicitly in another information request if such links existed, Tönnies admitted that its principal shareholder held majority shares in the Mühlen Group, and provided contractual agreements showing that the voting rights were exercised by a trustee who was responsible to the principle shareholder of Tönnies. Since this principle shareholder controlled Tönnies, all the companies he controlled had to be added to the notification. The FCO informed the notifying parties that it considered the notification to be incomplete as this information was missing. The planned acquisition was ultimately prohibited in late 2012 by the FCO, although the appeal is still pending.

The principal shareholder—a natural person—is the addressee of the fine amounting to €90,000. He agreed to a settlement and admitted to supplying the incomplete notification. Because of this admission, the FCO did not impose the maximum fine that it could levy in connection with an incomplete notification.

Administrative fines for incomplete information have been rare until recently. The FCO has demonstrated, however, that the merger notifications it receives must be complete and correct. Companies should therefore make sure that they submit all the information they are legally obliged to provide, and must ensure particularly that the entities controlling the notifying party also supply all the information pertaining to their controlling interests in other companies.

McDermott’s Antitrust & Competition Practice Group has broad experience in all aspects of antitrust and competition law, and it is recognized as one of the leading antitrust/competition practices in the world. The Group’s 65+ lawyers have a sophisticated practice that encompasses U.S. antitrust law, EC competition law and the competition laws of other countries throughout the world. The Group is centered in Washington, D.C. and has lawyers with significant antitrust/competition experience in its Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Silicon Valley, Brussels, Paris, Rome and Milan...

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.